Cetacean Evolution: trueorigin

Showing posts with label trueorigin. Show all posts

Whale Evolution and Atavistic Hind Limbs on Modern Whales

Pelvic bone on modern whales
Photographs of Humpback and Pilot Whale mounts contributed by the Milwaukee Public Museum with commentary by Professor Hans Thewissen.

The Evolution of Whales
Based on the sensational National Geographic article from November 2001, The Evolution of Whales. Overview of whale origins. Includes illustrations based on fossil progressions in transitional whales and dolphins. Additional comments from early whale expert and Paleontologist, J.G.M. Thewissen, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine.

Hind Limb Bud Images, Dolphin Embryo and Fetus Development
Photographs of hind limb buds on a five week old Pantropical Spotted Dolphin embryo, and 1.5 to 4 month fetus development. Images courtesy of Professor J.G.M. Thewissen.

Sirenian Evolution
(Manatee, Sea Cow, Dugong)
Sirenians and Elephants are evolved from a common ancestor. Like whales, sirenians returned to the water. Though hind limbs on whales may be rare and difficult to witness, many sirenians (not all) still retain vestigial toenails like their elephant cousins, and share other traits in common with modern elephants. Includes commentary between LeVar Burton and Dr. Mark Lowe, Veterenary Science. Contains images courtesy of Reading Rainbow, PBS Television. (GPN/Nebraska Educational Telecommunications and WNED-TV, Buffalo NY).

A Dolphin with Hind Limbs, Science Blogs
Dolphin May Have 'Remains' of Legs, Associated Press
Answers In Genesis Response to Dolphin Hind Limb Discovery
Response to AiG's Response on Dolphin Hind Limbs

Dolphin Hind Limbs - Response to Answers in Genesis (AiG)
Answers in Genesis' changing views on hind limb rudiments on cetaceans after discovery of dolphin with four fins.

CONTENTS:
INTRODUCTION: The Evolution of Whales
Introduction into the controversy over the origins of modern whales which retain vestigial hind limb rudiments. Cladogram of early whales to modern whales.
REVIEW OF Strange Tale of the Leg on the Whale
Vestigial pelvises on whales, denial of femurs by Creationists (calling it bone disease). Creationists say these remnants were designed for copulation only, but science says this is how Evolution works --finding new purpose for old structures.
REVIEW OF Strange Tale of the Leg on the Whale
Out of date information published by Creationists. New fossil finds of early whales. Contains image of complete leg bones from basilosaurus, and reconstruction of the creature's likely appearance.
REVIEW OF A Whale of a Tale? (Ambulocetus) Don Batten
The whale tail and Ambulocetus' lack of a fluke, nasal drift and canine teeth in early whales. Image showing nasal drift from early to modern whales.
REVIEW OF Overselling of Whale Evolution
Questions on the dating of varied early whales, and further suggested reading on whale evolution. The evolution of eco-location, nursing young (suggesting common ancestry with land mammals), and the brain of humans vs. cetacea.
Land to Sea: Inner Ear Transitions in Whales
Images of transitional inner ear of whales, as they evolved from land to sea mammals. Professor Hans Thewissen explains the differences of earbone fossils, the incus and tympanic.
Pelvic Bones on Whales, Ambulocetus
Answers in Genesis knowingly placed out of date information on the web to refute up to date information. An example of blatant non-scientific misrepresentation of fossil evidence in an attempt to discredit evolutionary fact as speculative theory.
Example One of Hind Limb Rudiments
1958, caught in the Bering Sea - An X-Ray revealing bone structures and a photograph taken of the protrusions on the whale's body.
Example Two of Hind Limb Rudiments
1919 Historical record and photos of a female humpback with protruded hind limbs including femur, tibia and tarsus, and 1914 report of protruded limbs on embryoes. Images of protruded limb on Cachalot.
Example Three of Hind Limb Rudiments
Female Sperm Whale, caught in 1956. Upon examining the interior of the limb three partially cartilaginous bones were found. Corresponding to the pelvis, femur, and possibly to the tibia.
Example Four of Hind Limb Rudiments
A list of catches between 1956 and 1963 of whales caught and discovery of hind limb protrustions, including the approxiamate percentage of whales.
Example Five of Hind Limb Rudiments
Struthers' commentary on the dissection of a right whale and photos from the Museum of Zoology, including further diagrams. Some interesting facts concerning the pelvic anatomy of the majority of modern day whales.
Evolutionary Atavisms
Atavisms and tails on human beings, summary to a creationist by K. Nahigian
Skeleton of adult male, Blaineville's Beaked Whale, Mesoplodon densirostris in the Australian Museum, Sydney (after Van Beneden and Gervais, 1868-1879). Forelimb and and pelvic rudiment are from an adult male of the same species in the American Museum of Natural History (after Raven, 1942).
Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals
William F. Perrin, Bernd Wursig, J.G.M. Thewissen

RECOMMENDED READING

Whale Evolution - Origine (trueorigins.us)
An analysis of the newer evidences for macro-evolution, and problems with scriptures.

The Emergence of Whales, Evolutionary Patterns in the Origin of Cetacea (Advances in Vertebrate Paleobiology) (Hardcover)
by J. G. M. Thewissen (Editor)

Review from Journal of Mammology, August 6, 2002
Reviewer: Jasmine Benzvi (New York, NY)
'Up to now, a 'state of the art' summary of research on whale origins has not been available. This book admirably fills that void and should be added to the library of any serious mammologist or paleomammalogist.'
- by Annalisa Berta

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (Hardcover)
by William F. Perrin (Editor), Bernd Wursig (Editor), J.G.M. Thewissen (Editor)
"This impressive reference would make an excellent addition to any library..."-ENCYCLOPEDIA OF DINOSAURS AND VOLCANOES (February 2003)
"Very highly recommended for students, professionals, researchers and lay people with an interest in marine mammals."
WILDLIFE ACTIVIST (Fall 2002)
"...an excellent resource for beginning research. ...This encyclopedia is very highly recommended for all academic and larger public libraries." Teresa Bowden, Villanova University Falvey Memorial Library for E-STREAMS (September 2002)
"...students beginning postgraduate study on marine mammals and researchers and academics working on marine mammals will find it indispensable."

On 6/17/2005 3:51:22 PM, Terry wrote:
home.earthlink.net/~w0dfi/pet.html

I think you will really enjoyed this full whale skelton, I think it is a "blue" whale I forget…maybe you have seen it?
I took the picture in the Gulf of Mexico this year but the Skeloton is on Los Conchos Beach east of Puerte Penasco, Sonora, Mexico.
I only had an instant Camera but that's better than nothing. I think it was a Blue whale?? or one with a huge mouth? -Terry and Pets

TOKYO Nov 5, 2006 (AP), Japanese scientists reported a bottlenose dolphin, has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind limbs. The dolphin was captured alive in western Japan on Oct. 28, by Fishermen. "I believe the fins may be remains from the time when dolphins' ancient ancestors lived on land," said Seiji Osumi, of Tokyo's Institute of Cetacean Research. The hind fins are much smaller than the front fins and are about the size of human hands, protruding near the tail. The dolphin measured approx 9 feet in length.

Japan's Four-Fin Dolphin Discovery

Photos of hind limb rudiments on modern day whales (and creationist "answers")

Photos (with discussion) of hind limb rudiments found on modern day whales

Photo of hind limb bud on whale embryo

Photo of hind limb bud on dolphin embryo (dolphins are another member of the Cetacean family, along with whales)

CRITICISMS OF THE ABOVE PHOTOS AND EVIDENCE FROM CREATIONISTS ALONG WITH MY REPLIES:

DAVID TYLER writes:

Hi Ed,
Thanks for visiting the BCS web site and for your note. As it happens, the latest issue of "Origins", our journal, has an essay by Paul Garner on "The Whale that Wasn't". I'll forward your post to Paul.

BTW, we're quite comfortable with cetaceans having hind limb rudiments. They are mammals and they have a mammalian body design.

Best regards,
David J. Tyler, on behalf of BCS

TED HOLDEN'S CRITICISM:

From: "Ted Holden"
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:35 PM
Subject: Evolution of whales - vestigial hind limbs

There are several things which make whale evolution impossible and not just the question of legs to flippers.

The biggest problem as I see it is baleen. How is a normal predator which kills large animals with its teeth and eats them supposed to start straining plankton through its teeth and somehow or other hold on and survive until his teeth turn into whalebone, 10,000 generations later.

You've got to be seriously stupid to believe anything like that. In fact, the guy who believes that will make Mortimer Snerd look like Albert Einstein by way of contrast.

Ted Holden

Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist. Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines.

ED's REPLY TO TED HOLDEN:

It's always something with creationists like Ted. If evidence of land-based creatures moving to the sea isn't enough, now they want to know how teeth evolved into baleen. And they add, "baleen disproves evolution could have occured!" So they just keep drawing that line backwards. Now the line is drawn as "Baleen!" Heck, think about the line back when Duane T. Gish of ICR was pumelling even the possibility of whale evolution with his "Cow to Whale" slide.
Evolution's come a long way baby, and it keeps on a-commin.

ANOTHER CREATIONIST:

Since whales are based on the "mammalian body plan" we would expect them to sometimes sprout rudimentary hind limbs on occaision when the plan sometimes gets messed up or mutated.

ED's REPLY:

It would appear that the creationist above has not read the entire article nor taken the time to examine the photos. I wonder of course how the above young-earth creationist might feel about this evidence if he could first be convinced that the world is indeed very old, and that fossil succesion has occured, and see for himself what comparative anatomical changes throughout time, imply.

He probably believes that all the whale fossils were of creatures that lived simultaneously with each other and with dinosaurs and trilobites and marine reptiles, etc. Though I would like him to explain why whales are found in the correct relative geological layers for their comparative anatomy to even suggest evolution from previously living land mammals with peculiar ear bones. Or why modern day whale fossils are not found in layers beneath their obvious precursors but only afterwards. Or why other large denizens of the deep that were reptiles from the age of reptiles are never found buried with the earliest whales nor above them but always beneath them? Those large marine reptiles certainly would have swam in the same environments as the cetaceans (whales and porpoises) if they all lived together. Indeed, with a Flood of the magnitude of the Bible there should be out-of-place-fossils galore, out of place fossil fragments too. Only long eons of time could have separated the fossils as they are separated so completely, right down to bone fragments and micro-fossils (single celled fossilized organisms).

Apparently even Duane T. Gish knows this, as he refuses to debate the age of the earth and has even admitted (much to his fellow creationists' chagrin) that the evidence for fossil succession is a challenge that his fellow young-earthers at ICR have not adequately met:

"When I visited the Institute for Creation Research towards the end of 1978... The associate director is Duane T. Gish, who has a PhD in biochemistry from Berkeley. ... Considering that I believe living things have a common origin and have evolved over a long period of time, and Duane Gish doesn't, there turned out to be a surprising amount of shared ground between us. ... Duane Gish and others of his standing are well aware of this problem [for their young-earth views, i.e., the problem of the age of the earth], but in the end they let their faith over-ride it. When I asked him what were the biggest difficulties for creationist science the points in a debate which he felt least comfortable in answering - he answered after a moment's thought that it was the apparently great age of Earth as shown by the fairly recent advances in radiometric dating; and that the the fossil record could be interpreted as showing ecologically complete ages - the age of invertebrates, the age of fishes, the age of reptiles, and so on up to the present. " [from Hitching F., The Neck of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Pan: London, 1982, pp.115-121]

Of course, to creationist critics it's all merely "part of God's plan" to them, including "body plans" that go awry every now and then and sprout rudimentary hind limbs. And it proves nothing to them that land-based ancestors with special "water-hearing" ear bones preceded species that were more adapted for the water. Proves nothing to them that the earliest whales were so different from later more highly specialized and robust species. Proves nothing to them that the record shows it wasn't "Design," but work done in stages, tinkering with some land mammals over tens of millions of years, during which time most of those ancient species became extinct, rubbish heap designs.

British Creation Society vs. Whale Evolution

"DAVID TYLER" writes:

Hi Ed,

Thanks for visiting the BCS web site and for your note. As it happens, the latest issue of "Origins", our journal, has an essay by Paul Garner on "The Whale that Wasn't". I'll forward your post to Paul.

BTW, we're quite comfortable with cetaceans having hind limb rudiments. They are mammals and they have a mammalian body design.

Best regards,
David J. Tyler, on behalf of BCS.

Hi David,

Thanks for your quick reply.

I do intend to read Garner's article that you mentioned if it goes online or if you could email it to me.

When I was a young-earth creationist (YEC) I read Doughas Dewar's book THE TRANSFORMIST ILLUSION along with a huge packetful of tracts from the Biblical Creation Society, or was it called the British Creation Movement back then?

Later, I read a book by another Brit, Alan Hayward, titled, CREATION AND EVOLUTION. I wrote Hayward and he sent me his opening statement at a debate he had with a BCS person on the age of the earth. (Hayward is an OEC), and he said that the vote afterwards was in his favor. Hayward's arguments for an old-earth in his book influenced me to move completely away from YEC, even to oppose it as he did. In fact I cited some of Hayward's arguments in a little paper I wrote:

Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense -Or- Reasons why "Flood Geology" was abandoned in the mid-1800s by Christian men of science

You wrote that you were "quite comfortable with cetaceans having hind limb rudiments. They are mammals and they have a mammalian body design."

I wonder of course how you (a YEC) might feel about this evidence if you could first be convinced that the world is indeed very old, and that fossil succesion has occured, and see for yourself what comparative anatomical changes throughout time imply.

You currently believe that all the whale fossils were of creatures that lived simultaneously with each other and with dinosaurs and marine reptiles, etc. Though I would like him to explain why whales are found in the correct relative geological layers for their comparative anatomy to even suggest evolution from previously living land mammals with peculiar ear bones. Or why modern day whale fossils are not found in layers beneath their obvious precursors but only afterwards. Or why other large denizens of the deep that were reptiles from the age of reptiles, are never found buried with the earliest whales nor above them but always beneath them?*

*Please don't bring up the alleged "Pleisiosaur carcass," that even Answers in Genesis warns its members against citing: "The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand'. This carcass was almost certainly a rotting basking shark, since their gills and jaws rot rapidly and fall off, leaving the typical small `neck' with the head. This has been shown by similar specimens washed up on beaches. Also, detailed anatomical and biochemical studies of the Zuiyo-maru carcass show that it could not have been a plesiosaur.

Source: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

Those large marine reptiles certainly would have swam in the same environments as the cetaceans (whales and porpoises) if they all lived together. Indeed, with a Flood of the magnitude of the Bible there should be out-of-place-fossils galore, out of place fossil fragments too. Only long eons of time could have separated the fossils as they are separated so completely, right down to bone fragments and micro-fossils (single celled fossilized organisms) -- For more on that please see Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense -Or- Reasons why "Flood Geology" was abandoned in the mid-1800s by Christian men of science

Even the YEC creation-evangelist Duane T. Gish refuses to debate the age of the earth and has even admitted (much to his fellow creationists' chagrin) that the evidence for fossil succession is a challenge that his fellow young-earthers at ICR have not adequately met:

Of course you are "quite comfortable" as Gish is, being a YEC, because then you can just call everything "part of God's plan," including "body plans" that go awry every now and then and sprout rudimentary hind limbs. And you can be "quite comfortable" with land-based relatives of whales that had special "water-hearing" ear bones and which preceded species that were even more fully adapted for the water. And "quite comfortable" with the earliest whales being so different from later more highly specialized and robust modern species. And finally, "quite comfortable" that the record of fossil succession shows it wasn't "Design," but a work done in stages, at best, tinkering with some land mammals over tens of millions of years, during which time most of those ancient species became extinct, rubbish heap designs.

I was never quite comfortable myself, even as a creationist, especially once my faith in "Flood geology" explanations ran out.

Hind Limb Rudiments on Modern Whales Example Three

HIND LIMB RUDIMENTS FOUND ON MODERN DAY WHALES

EXAMPLE #3

1956 -- Female Sperm Whale caught by Japanese whaling operation, Nov. 8th, 1956, “protuberances on both sides of the genital opening. … The height of the protuberance was 5.35 centimeters on the right side, 6.56 centimeters on the left side.” (SEE PHOTOS OF THE PROTRUSIONS FROM SIX DIFFERENT ANGLES, Fig. 5)

“Upon examining the interior of the left limb three partially cartilaginous bones were found. They correspond to pelvis, femur, and possibly to tibia, but no joints exist between them. Pretty strong muscles connect between femur and tibia. The tibia is 13 centimeters long for the greater part cartilaginous, and only partly ossified stick-like body with its distal end inserted into the skin of the hind-limb protuberance. (SEE THE SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM BASED ON THE DISSECTION [Fig. 6] AND ALSO SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DISSECTED HIND LIMB RUDIMENTS [Fig. 7]) A number of arteries and nerves run parallel to this tibia distalward. … The veins are not easily visible by the naked eye, but they are found attached intimately to the wall of arteries. This case can be understood by assuming abnormal retention of the early embryonic state, and show very probably an atavism back to the quadripedal condition of the whale’s remote ancestors. It can never be a malformation of no phylogenetic significance.” “We searched into the interior of the left limb. The pelvic bone was found there. … In the neighborhood of the pelvis, nearly at the middle part of this bone, the femur covered with cartilage is present taking the form of a small ball with the diameter ca. 3 centimeters. … 4.8 centimeters distant from the femur a mostly cartilaginous stick of the length 13 centimeters is present. It is only partially ossified. ... It is difficult to determine whether this stick corresponds either to tibia, fibula, or both of them fused together, or rather to an isolated distal portion of femur. But we take it provisionally for tibia in view of two slender muscles coming from the femur, and inserting to the anterior surface of the bony part of the stick. … The distal end [of the tibia] lies in the central part of the hind limb protrusion.” (SEE THE SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM BASED ON THE DISSECTION [Fig. 6] AND ALSO SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DISSECTED HIND LIMB RUDIMENTS [Fig. 7]) “Two weak muscles (M5 and M6 in Fig. 6) are attached to the osseous tibia by intercalation of tendons. For the time being we take these muscles for the rudimentary mm. vast. … Our attention was further given to the richness of nerves and arteries pertaining to the limb. All of them run nearly parallel to the tibia in the proximal-distal direction … As to large arteries we have counted six of them (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 in Fig. 6) at the proximal end of the tibia. It is noteworthy that most of them reach the interior of the protruded limb. … All of the nerves destined to the hind limb are continuous from a thick trunk (N1+2) passing through the triangular space between pelvis and femur mentioned above (S). … Nerves and arteries run at first ventral to the pelvis, then dorsal to the femur, to reach further the tibial region.”
SOURCE: Ogawa, R., and Kamiya, T. A. (1957) "Case of the Cachalot [Sperm Whale] With Protruded Rudimentary Hind Limbs." Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Insititute, No. 12, p. 197-208.

Hind Limb from Whale - Example #3, Figure#7

Figure 7
This photo goes with the previous example, EXAMPLE #3

Hind Limb Rudiments on Modern Whales

HIND LIMB RUDIMENTS FOUND ON MODERN DAY WHALES

EXAMPLE #2

In July 1919, a female Humpback Whale with two remarkable protrusions on the ventral side of the body, posteriorly, was captured by a ship operating from the whaling station at Kyuquot, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia [Canada]. One of the protrusions was cut off by the crew of the vessel but the other was photographed in situ by the superintendent of the Station. (Figure #3) Mr. Sidney Ruck and Mr. Lawson, officials of the Consolidated Whaling Company, appreciated the importance of the discovery and presented the skeletal remains of the attachment to the Provincial Museum, Victoria, B.C. [Canada]. At my request, Mr. Francis Kermode, Director of the Provincial Museum, very courteously submitted the bones to me with permission to publish upon the result of my examination.

Under date of March 4, 1920, Mr. Ruck writes to Kermode as follows: “I enclose herewith three photographs showing the unusual development of the pelvic Rudiments in a whale captured at the Kyuquot Station last July, of which you have the bones. It is to be regretted that better pictures in evidence of this unprecedented development were not obtained. I have been connected with the Whaling Industry for 22 years and during my time have come in contact with prominent Naturalists such a Professor True of the Smithsonian Institute, Professor Lucas of the Natural History Museum, New York, and neither in their experience or mine have the protrusion of the pelvic bones beyond the body ever been seen or heard of. This particular whale was a female Humpback of the average length with elementary legs protruding from the body about 4 feet 2 inches, covered with blubber about one-half an inch thick. As shown in the best photograph these legs protruded on either side of the genital opening; the left leg was cut off by the crew of the vessel and lost, and the point at which it was cut off is clearly shown in the photograph. The end of the leg seen in the picture terminated in a kind of round know like a man’s clenched fist. The two bones of the leg which you have are connected by cartilage which I was informed had shrunk about 10 inches, and possibly more by this time. At any rate the total length of the leg before it was cleaned of the blubber and flesh was, as before stated, about 4 feet, 2 inches, from the body.”…

Hind Limb Rudiments Found on Modern Day Whales

The skeletal remains in my possession consist of two bones and two heavy cartilages. When placed in position (see Figure #4), the total length is 31 inches.

Hind Limb Rudiments Found on Modern Day Whales - Figure 4

FEMUR (a long cartilage) -- The larger bone is deeply concave proximally and to it is attached a massive cartilage which, in its present shrunken condition, is 5 ¼ inches in length and 1 5/8 inches wide. I estimate that this cartilage was at least 15 inches long and 3 inches wide when fresh. I believe that this cartilage represents the femur. It probably lay entirely within the body, its proximal end being attached to the pelvic vestiges. Such a massive cartilage much necessarily have had a firm support and leads me to believe that the pelvic elements in this individual were of extraordinary size. …

TIBIA (the longer of the two bones) -- The larger of the two bones I identify as the tibia. It is 14 ¼ inches in greatest length, is well developed, and has a hard, smooth outer surface. At the proximal end its greatest width is 3 ¾ inches, it narrows gradually for three-fourths of its length, and then suddenly expands at the distal extremity, where it is 2 ½ inches wide.

TARSUS (another cartilage) -- The distal end of the tibia is convex and gives attachment to a cartilage which in its shrunken state is 4 ¾ inches long and 1 ¾ inches wide. This cartilage, I believe, represents the tarsus. That it presents not ossifications is by no mean surprising as the carpal bones in the forelimbs of cetaceans are sometimes entirely absent and often in a more or less rudimentary condition. Mr. Ruck says “the two bones of the leg which you have are connected by cartilage which I was informed had shrunk about 10 inches and possibly more by this time.” This would give the tarsal cartilage a lengthy of nearly 15 inches. METATARSAL (the shorter of the two bones) -- The distal element in the leg is a hard, well-developed bone which I identify as a metatarsal. It has the characteristic shape of the metacarpals in the fore limbs of cetaceans except that it is more slender. It is 6 1/8 inches long. 1 7/8 inches in distal width; its least width is 15/16 of an inch. To the distal end of the metatarsal is attached a heavy cartilage of which only 3/4/ of an inch remains intact. This cartilage probably formed the extremity of the hind limb skeleton.

EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF THE LIMB -- In reference to the limb as it appeared in the fresh condition, Mr. Ruck says that the end terminated in a “kind of round knob like a man’s clenched fist,” that the total length was about four feet and two inches, and that it was covered with blubber about one-half inch thick. I infer from Mr. Ruck’s description that the connective tissue and blubber were essentially the same as in the flipper, or fore limb, of cetaceans. The photograph of the limb in situ show that there are two prominent, truncated tuberosities on the distal half. The proximal “bunch” evidently indicates the distal end of the tibia and the other is at the extremity of the metatarsal. These tuberosities may very properly be homologized with those on the other, or anterior, edge of the flipper in the Megaptera (Humpback Whale) which indicate the extremities of the radius and the second digit. This is, I believe, a point which has considerable significance.

Figure 5
This photo goes with the following example, EXAMPLE #3

Since the stalk-like cartilaginous femur probably lay entirely within the body and the remainder of the limb entirely outside, there was undoubtedly a certain flexibility at the point of junction with the body.

In 1914 Professor W. Kikenthal described external rudimentary hind limbs in three early embryos of Megaptera (Humpback Whale). These appear as two more or less caudally directed papillae on either side of the genital organ in the same relative position as the himb limbs which I have described in this paper. In Kukenthal’s Stage 1 (an embryo 32 mm. In length) the rudiments are best developed and are 1.2 mm. Long. In Stage II the rudiments are somewhat less distinct…In Stage III (an embryo 30 mm. Long) the hind-limb rudiments have still more decreased in size and appear as minute papillae. Kukenthal and Guldberg have also discovered hind-limb rudiments in embryos of other cetacean species. Since Kukenthal’s and Guldenberg’s researches have shown that external hind-limb rudiments are still present in some cases [actually in “all” cases -- E.T.B.] in embryonic life, it is by no means impossible that, these vestigial organs should continue their growth and persist until the adult stage. I believe that that is exactly what has occurred in the specimen which I have described above, and that we are confronted with a clear case of partial reversion to a primitive quadripedal condition. The limbs, according to the statements of the whalers, were symmetrical; they are in the exact position in which hind-limb rudiments have been found in embryonic Megaptera (Humpback Whales); there are strong indications that the cartilaginous femur was attached to the pelvic elements; they are homologous in many respects to the flippers, or fore limbs, and, were this a teratological case [say, due to a rare biological monstrosity or malformation], it is doubtful if these homologies would exist. Unwilling as are many evolutionists to accept reported cases of reversion, I can see no other explanation for the facts presented here. That this condition is extremely rare must certainly be true for, so far as I am aware, this is the only recorded case among cetaceans.

SOURCE: Andrews, R. C. [of The American Museum of Natural History] (1921) "A Remarkable Case of External Hind Limbs in a Humpback Whale." Amer. Mus. Novitates. No. 9. [R. C. Andrews, “then of the National Museum, now of the American Museum of Natural History,” was writing in 1921. No whales with hind limb rudiments as long as those he described have since been found, except perhaps for one catch in the Gulf of Alaska by Soviet whalers in 1964 of a Sperm Whale with hind limb rudiments not covered by skin and similar to those described by Andrews -- the authors who mentioned this other find also mentioned “no detailed description and no illustrations are available” of that catch. Which is not to say that further examples of hind limb rudiments of shorter lengths have not been discovered. They have. See further examples below. -- E.T.B.]

Figure 6

Hind Limb Rudiments on Modern Whales Example One

HIND LIMB RUDIMENTS FOUND ON MODERN DAY WHALES

EXAMPLE #1
In 1958 we examined a male Sperm Whale 11.6 meters long caught in the Bering Sea, with unusual protrusions in the pelvic region and along the sides of the genital fold (see Figure #1) with a total length of 28 and 34 centimeters, pigmented like the rest of the body. The section of the left protrusion that extended from the body had the appearance of the rounded blade of a propeller, while the right one looked like a fin with finger-shaped processes. The bones were enclosed in dense connective tissue. Judging from an X-ray photograph (see Figure #2) of the skeleton of the protrusions in this specimen, the section of the protrusions that lay inside the body corresponded to the femur, and the middle section to the tibia and the fibula. The section of the protrusions that extended from the body corresponded to the step of the hind limb, and the elements composing it are probably phalanges of the digits. According to the number of phalanges visible in the X-ray photograph, these are the fifth and fourth digits. The skeleton of these limbs is distinguished from the typical structure of the skeleton of the pentadactyl limb of mammals by the absence of tarsal elements. It may be, however, that they were simply not found due to their small size, weak ossification, and the abundance of connective tissue.
SOURCE: Zembskii, V. A., and Berzin, A. A. (1961) "On the Rare Phenomenon of Atavism in the Sperm Whale." Nauchnye Doklady Vysshei Shkoly. Series "Biologicheskie Nauki." Translated and cited in Berzin, A. A. (1972) The Sperm Whale. Pacific Scientific Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem. Available from the U. S. Dept. of Commerce, National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA. p. 65-67

Figure 1

Figure 2

This diagram goes with the previous example

Review of Overselling of Whale Evolution

Cetacean Evolution (Whales, Dolphins, Porpoises)
Evidence Of Common Ancestry of Cetaceans and Certain Species of Land Mammals
by Edward T. Babinski

(Reviews of several creationist articles that deny such evidence exists.)

REVIEW OF The Overselling of Whale Evolution
by Ashby L. Camp
The author complains about the dating scheme of the Archaeocetes (early whales): "In the standard scheme, Pakicetus inachus is dated to the late Ypresian, but several experts acknowledge that it may date to the early Lutetian. [18] If the younger date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is nearly, if not actually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus, an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan.[19] Moreover, the date of Ambulocetus, which was found in the same formation as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would have to be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus.[20] This would make Ambulocetus younger than Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Indocetus and even Protocetus.[21] In the standard scheme, Protocetus is dated to the middle Lutetian, but some experts have dated it in the early Lutetian.[22] If the older date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Protocetus is contemporaneous with Rodhocetus and Indocetus. In that case, what is believed to have been a fully marine archaeocete was already on the scene at or near the time archaeocetes first appear in the fossil record. [23] "The fact that all of the above critters are clustered together in geologic time with similarly shaped skulls and intermediary earbones unlike modern day whales, and that they were all mammals adapted in varying degrees to a water habitat, and that they all preceded modern cetaceans, speaks louder than the author's reliance on dating haggles to make a case for creationism. Reminds me of the old joke about two men looking up at a tall skyscraper and arguing vehemently over whether it was exactly one hundred stories tall or one-hundred-and-one stories tall by each of their careful reckonings. Then a third man comes over, in this case the author of the above article, and argues that their disagreements prove that his hypothesis -- that the building is really only a SINGLE storey tall -- makes more sense.)

"It's tempting to build this story like a totem pole, with trotting Pakicetus at the base, Ambulocetus laying its humming jaw on top of it, and Rodhocetus, the earliest whale to swim like a whale, sitting above the two. It seems like such a smooth progression toward today's cetaceans that it must be right. But such a version would only be a vertical slice of the story. Life doesn't proceed from one point to another -- it forks and radiates like the cladograms that represent it. Paleontologists have found many other whale bones in Eocene rocks of Pakistan and India. Mostly they are teeth -- the rock surrenders a few skulls as well -- but even teeth clearly show that their owners were not clones of Pakicetus or the other better-known whales. Ambulocetus kept to brackish deltas and coastal water, but Thewissen has found whale teeth from about the same age in what at the time was the open ocean. Gingerich has found at least three contemporaries of Rodhocetus a few million years younger than Ambulocetus: Takracetus, with a wide, flat head; Gavinocetus, with a slender skull and loose hips; and Dalanistes, a whale with a head as long and narrows as a heron's set on a long neck, with hips cemented firmly enough to its spine to walk on land. If this is a confusing picture, it should be. As time passed, certain whale species emerged that were more and more adapted to life in the water, but other species simultaneoulsy branched away in many directions. Walking and swimming whales lived side by side, or in some cases traded homes as the buckling birth of the Himalayas shuffled their habitats. Some were only a minor variation on a theme that would carry through to modern whales, but others -- heron-headed Dalamistes, for example -- belonged to strange branches unilke anything alive today. "-- Carl Zimmer, At the Water's Edge

QUESTION: How did the whales's eco-location system evolve?
ANSWER: There is a fascinating discussion of what is presently known about the evolution of whale skulls and of cetacean eco-location in Carl Zimmer's book, By the Water's Edge.

QUESTION: How did whales evolve a process whereby the young whale could ingest milk from the mother through a water-tight sealed apparatus with the milk being pumped into the young whale instead of them having to suck by some type of random, evolutionary process?
ANSWER: "Randomness" does not phase atheistic evolutionists (who view natural selection as non-random), nor does it phase theistic evolutionists nor Intelligent Design advocates (for whom the evolutionary process is not random), yet who all agree that evidence for common ancestry exists. The fact that female whales birth their young and feed them via mammary glands reminds evolutionists that whales share their ancestry with mammals.

SUGGESTED READINGS IN WHALE EVOLUTION:Carl Zimmer, At the Waters Edge(1988) Carl Zimmer, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea (2001)Creationist Mindblocks to Whale Evolution (By a scientist who addresses ICR concerns, and whom you can get in touch with via e-mail. If you shorten the web address below you can get to his home page featuring "news," that includes his brief description of visiting S.C. to see new cetacean fossils there).

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence (examines the evidence one category at a time: morphological, paleontological, embryological, etc.)

Ambulocetus as a Fossil Transitional by Lenny Flank (a response to Gish's analysis of Ambulocetus)

Introduction to the Cetacea (with links to Cetacean evolution sites at the bottom of the page)

The Evolution of Large Complex Brains Over Geological Time is Not Unique to the Human Species. It Has Now Been Documented in the Evolutionary Line of the Cetacea As Well
A new Emory University study (Release date: Oct. 22, 2004) maps how brain size changed in dolphins and their relatives the past 47 million years, and helps to provide some answers to how cetacean species evolved increasing encephalization (just as the primate line leading to human beings also evolved increasing encepahlization). Increasing encephalization over time is not a phenomenon unique to the human species and lineage.
Marino and her colleagues spent four years gathering the data and tracking down fossils at The Smithsonian Institution and other museums. A total of 66 cetaean fossil crania were scanned and measured. This subset was added to brain and body weight data from 144 modern cetacean specimens for a total sample of 210 specimens representing 37 families and 62 species. Their work produced the first description and statistical tests of the pattern of change in brain size relative to body size in cetaceans over 47 million years. They found that encephalization level increased significantly in two critical phases in the evolution of odontocetes. "[Modern] dolphin brains are four to five times larger for their body size when compared to another animal of similar size. In humans, the measure is seven times larger -- not a huge difference. Essentially, the brains of primates and cetaceans arrived at the same cognitive space while evolving along quite different paths" Marino says. "What the data say to me is that we, as humans, are not that special. Although we are highly encephalized, it's not by much or for that long compared with odontocetes." "A description of the pattern of encephalization in toothed whales has enormous potential to yield new insights into odontocete evolution, whether there are shared features with hominoid brain evolution, and more generally how large brains evolve," Marino says. Marino's previous research has shown how dolphins have the capacity for mirror self-recognition, a feat of intelligence previously thought to be reserved only for Homo sapiens and their closest primate cousins.
www.sciencedaily.com

www.emory.edu

Other Links of interest:
Photo of a whale embryo's hind limb bud, while the following link is a pic of a cetacean's hind limb bud, namely that of a dolphin.
Photo of whale embryo hind limb bud

The following web article features clear full-color pics of hind limb buds on a modern day cetacean embryo.

EVOLUTION and DEVELOPMENT 4:6, 445-458 (2002)Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss Lars Bejder* and Brian K. Hall 1 Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, CanadaB3H 4J1 *Author for correspondence (e-mail: lbedjer@is2.dal.ca)
Both authors contributed equally to this article.

"We're working on a neat new website now, that shows the embryological data. Little dolphin embryos with hind limbs for instance. Suspected launch: fall 2003.Thewissen - Northeastern Ohio Universities
- J. G. M. Hans Thewissen, Ph. D.

Note: this link is provided as a resource for further study on Whale Evolution.

"The Emergence of Whales: Evolutionary Patterns in the Origins of the Cetacea"

(Advances in Vertebrate Paleontology) edited by J.G.M. Thewissen.
Plenum Press, ISBN 0306458535.
Review by James Acker

For Evidence of Vestigial Features on other Modern Day Creatures, see "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Part 2: Past History" by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

Atavisms and Vestigial Limbs

Vestigial features.The skeleton of a baleen whale, a representative of the group of mammals that contains the largest living species, contains pelvic bones. These bones resemble those of other mammals, but are only weakly developed in the whale and have no apparent function.

More links to further articles specifically related to the Evolution of whales

Whale Evolution / Introduction to The Evolution of Cetaceans

Cetacean Evolution (Whales, Dolphins, Porpoises)

Evidence of Common Ancestry of Cetaceans and Certain Species of Land Mammals

by Edward T. Babinski

(Reviews of several creationist articles that deny such evidence exists.)

INTRODUCTION
"Whales have been trouble for scientists since Linnaeus put together the first modern taxonomy in 1735, 'Amidst the greatest apparent confusion, the greatest order is visible,' Linneaus wrote about classification, and yet when he tried to classify whales, he seemed only to add more confusion. Were they fish or mammals? 'These are necessarily arranged with the Mammalia,' he demanded, 'though their habits and manners are like those of fish.' Whales, he pointed out, have hearts like ventricles and auricles like mammals, they are warm-blooded, have lungs, nurse their young -- just like mammals on land. They even have eyelids that move. . . Darwin viewed the similarities that Linnaeus had found as signs that whales (including porpoises and dolphins) descended from mammals that lived on land."
-- Carl Zimmer, Evolution

Source: PBS - WGBH Boston "Evolution" Project
Image may be re-distributed on the condition that all credits stay intact:

Reprinted with permission from Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, by Carl Zimmer. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001. Source: Art by Deborah Perugi, adapted from Carl Buell's cladogram from At the Water's Edge, by Carl Zimmer, Free Press, 1998.

Whale Evolution
Thewissen 2002, Origin of Whales

Other Reading